Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Unhinged: Senseless Attacks on Sitting Judges Do Not a President Make
It seems in some sense pointless to say anything more against Donald Trump’s venomous personal attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has the unenviable task of presiding over a law suit that calls into question the moral probity, intellectual rigor, and economic soundness of Trump University. Ironically, for all his talk about Curiel as “hater,” he has yet to ask Curiel to recuse himself from the case, knowing full well that a vicious personal assault is better than a groundless legal motion.
Before Trump began his ugly tirade against Judge Curiel, I was prepared to have an open mind about the merits of a law suit about which I knew, and continue to know, absolutely nothing. But now that Trump has decided to double-down on these scurrilous attacks, the easiest thing to do is to presume that a man who can so badly misbehave in public matters is likely to engage in the same dubious practices in his private business dealings. If Trump thinks that he has found a new way to run a presidential campaign, it speaks poorly to his own personal integrity and political judgment. His behavior against Curiel is the kind of onslaught that makes him unfit to govern. The entire episode is a nonstop travesty and should be condemned as such.
The situation is only worse because Trump, it appears, has decided to double-down on his offensive strategy in the face of huge amounts of criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, including key leaders in the Republican Party who have had to eat more than a modest amount of humble pie in order to remain loyal to the party. But his coarse speech that treats the merits of this case as self-evident shows that he has become a caricature of himself, willing to engage in the worst form of pyrotechnics in support of a vain and inglorious cause. He has become unhinged and perhaps delusional.
His sins on this matter go beyond monumentally bad taste for several reasons. The first is that there is absolutely nothing in Curiel’s background that merits this kind of harsh rebuke. Curiel has had extensive experience in private practice and government service. He was both a state and a federal court judge. The one item on his résumé that attracts immediate notice was that in his role as prosecutor, he was first Deputy Chief (1996-1999) and Chief (1999-2002) of the Narcotics Enforcement Division. This position was no sinecure, for as the Wikipedia account of his life notes, “Curiel prosecuted the Arellano Felix cartel in Tijuana, Mexico, and was targeted for assassination by the drug cartel.” It is nothing short of a disgrace to tar any person who took after Mexican cartels as unfit for office because of the “inherent conflict” of being Mexican. If anything, his willingness to stand up to a Mexican cartel is a strong point in his favor.
The institutional implications in this case, however, go far beyond the particulars of this dispute, for if Trump’s warped views on judicial behavior are accepted, it becomes impossible to run a decent system of justice. Trump of course regards himself as a figure above reproach. It would never occur to the ruffian that his own biases do not rest on any inherent, i.e., unavoidable, conflict of interest, but on the openly mean-spirited way in which he speaks of other people. Does he really think that he is fit to appoint people to serve on the federal bench or indeed in any office? Do white people have conflicts so that they cannot deal with litigation in which Mexicans or African Americans or Muslims take place?
Speaking generally, it is an exceedingly important feature of a successful legal system that everyone understands that there are places where identity politics are welcome, and places in which they are utterly alien to the spirit of a particular institution. Donald Trump, as a private citizen, could decide to invite only nativists to his own Fourth of July party. Other groups could decide to celebrate Cinco De Mayo in honor of Mexico’s victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. Others can celebrate Israel’s Independence Day, which this year fell on May 12, 2016. But all those forms of deep personal identification play no role in judicial decision-making.
Even though it is probably impossible for any one of us to put aside our own personal allegiances, as public servants we darn well have to try, because each of us in his or her public role owes it to all citizens to do the best that we can to keep these preferences in check. There is every reason to think that Judge Curiel has honorably hewed to this tradition of adjudication — and all too much public evidence to show that Donald Trump has done everything in his power to tear it down. We cannot run a country in which everyone gets a judge of his own race, gender or political persuasion. Anyone who says the opposite is working nonstop to tear down the fabric of American public institutions. We need desperately to preserve our social capital.
So, what should be done? Right now, the Republican Party should take it upon itself to ask whether it can nominate any candidate that shows such terrible judgment and bigotry in dealing with public matters. If the answer to that question is no, as it may well be, then they should turn themselves as one person against him, by refusing to honor his primary victories. It is better to run an open convention after removing this cancer before it spreads. The gruesome alternative is that, if he becomes President, there is all too great a chance that his impetuous temperament will lead him to perform public acts that will indeed count as high crimes and misdemeanors, worthy of impeachment. In this campaign, if Trump survives, look closely at his vice presidential pick, for sooner than you think that person could well become President after a Trump victory. So, Donald Trump — even you can learn to back off a fight that you cannot, should not, and must not win.
Published in Law
I’m not changing the subject, nor am I denying the judge’s associations. Bottom line–you thought the judge was a member of the National Council of La Raza. You were wrong, and don’t have the integrity to admit it. Now you’re bobbing and weaving.
So let’s see what you had to say:
Do tell: the judge belongs to what “racialist organization that’s violently opposed ” to his policies? Specifically.
Not “called” on it? Ha! Forget ‘called,’ it’s funded by your taxes.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/06/nclr-funding-skyrockets-after-obama-hires-its-vp/
The legal support team of La Raza.
No I didn’t. Still don’t. Bottom line.
So, wrong again. And you know it.
Bottom line, it’s clear to anyone who reads your posts over the past pages that you’re now officially something of a [insert the “l” word here, which I don’t use]. You likely never heard of the San Diego La Raza Bar Association (or whatever it’s called) until myself and another poster called you out on your snark . . . when you clearly thought the judge was a member of the National Council of La Raza. It’s really unfortunate that, like your candidate, you substitute obvious BS for an error.
You wouldn’t need all these silly, overwrought accusations if you had conclusive evidence to support your claim. So perhaps you might ask yourself why you are struggling so hard to demonstrate something that you simultaneously insist is perfectly clear.
I’m afraid what is made clear by your outburst is that you have difficulty controlling your emotions.
I’m merely responding to your attempts to get out from under the obvious fact that you based an entire line of argument–not to mention misplaced sarcasm–on being uninformed. We’d all be better off if you’d acknowledge that, but, as I said earlier, you don’t have the integrity to do so.
Yes, the obvious fact you can’t demonstrate no matter how long you try, so you make silly, puffed up accusations instead.
I specialize in silly, puffed up accusations when confronted with same. Look at it this way, you learned that the judge isn’t a member of the National Council of La Raza, so you don’t have to claim in other threads that he’s a member. That’s why Ricochet is great–people learn from their mistakes. Well, some people. Have a good evening.
Thanks. Had a great evening. What I’ve learned, however, is that you enjoy repeating yourself.
I’m well aware of all of Hillary’s personal flaws as well as her progressive policies.
Trump is not as bad on policies. That is the strongest argument in his favor. No need to list them. We all know what they are.
But in my opinion Trump does not have the wisdom, gravitas, thick skin, experience, or knowledge to make good decisions about practically anything. Some evidence that influences my thinking on this (you might not find it convincing) :
Where is Hillary on tariffs? Where is Hillary on First amendment issues of Speech and Religion?
Tariffs is policy, First Amendment issues are constitutional. SCOTUS appointments are key though because of Hillary’s overt attacks on the Second Amendment. This issue is enough to keep me in the Trump camp.
I think she might actually be better on tariffs. I don’t know that she’s said anything, but both Bill and Obama have incongruously pro-free-trade track records.
You’re right. Not all of us oppose government interference in the economy. I’ll keep that in mind in the future.
Now, see, you opened a can of worms. Are you actually suggesting that our government does not currently interfere in almost every aspect of our domestic economy. I am not opposed to free trade as an economic principle, but I will not support every effort to give big globally oriented corrupt corporations everything they seek at home and abroad and call that free trade.
If you associate economic liberalization with a giveaway to big business, then perhaps you’re the one who should be voting for Hillary Clinton.
I asked a question but I failed to punctuate with a question mark, so I guess I don’t get an answer. Do you oppose government interference in the economy?
I do, which is why I will not be voting for either the protectionist or the socialist.
I think this overstates it, but I certainly agree Trump is extremely flawed. Clinton is flawed in ways that don’t align with Trump’s “parade of horribles” but are even more egregious in my view. For example, selling US policy while SecState for Clinton Foundation donations is worse than anything Trump has ever done by orders of magnitude. She is far more corrupt than Trump in my view.
I can only conclude—but correct me if I’m wrong—that you think Trump’s flaws outweigh not only Hillary’s flaws, but also 4-8 more years of Obama’s policies and perhaps 3-4 SCOTUS nominations. That’s an enormous differential . . . I think you’re undervaluing the harm and corruption that another Clinton Administration would entail, or overvaluing Trump’s faults, or some combination of the two.
I waffle on Trump as he does his daily circus act but not on Hillary as the harm we know she will do is beyond belief.
This captures the central dilemma quite well. Hillary is a known disaster on every imaginable dimension that matters to conservatism, in my view. Trump is . . . well, Trump. He’s not a conservative, but he is (at least rhetorically) committed to conservative goals in certain select areas (immigration and border security are the most prominent ones).
Hillary is 1000% opposed to every conservative goal ever imagined. So, once we drain all the emotion out of this election, we are left with the following: an absolute abomination vs. a wild card that’s trending our way. That’s one hell of a crappy choice, but to my mind it’s not a difficult one. You go with the guy who is at least likely to give you some of what you want, and never, ever support the one who will never, ever give you so much as a crumb.
This is the crux of the matter. It is really about measuring the unmeasurable. If Trump were a normal man it would be oh so easy to vote for him and against Hillary. But he is about as abnormal as they come. The kind of harm such a man can do in the presidency is incalculable. Or, at least, I can’t calculate it.
In retrospect, do you agree this statement would have applied to Obama in 2008? I think so.
The point is Trump really isn’t as different or as dangerous as the Left and the Nervous Nellies on the Right (cf. Hugh Hewitt) would have you believe. We’ll survive Trump far more readily than we will Clinton desperately trying to be Obama’s next two terms.
Trump will maybe, maybe even probably, be a disaster. There’s 100% likelihood that Hillary will be. The margin is thin, but sometimes you have to go with it.
Thank you, GOPe, for giving us this choice.
Yeah, had they not managed the Congressional mandate we gave them so abysmally we wouldn’t be in this situation.
On the other hand, if the establishment had its way a Second Clinton President/third Obama term would be running against a Third Bush President/Third W term. All things considered, I’d rather have the choice we have than that.
The GOPe didn’t give us Donald Trump as the nominee, people who watch Reality TV shows (and think they are real) gave us Donald Trump.
We are now entering a world where the biggest celebrity will become President.
This is the “Society is to blame” defense. It doesn’t matter what the Establishment did, the voters did something stupid and should be held responsible for it.
There is nothing “stupid” about wanting to secure our borders and bring immigration down to manageable levels, two things which the GOPe promised – and repeatedly failed – to do.